• Akin, O. and Lin, C.: 1996, Design Protocol data and Novel Design Decisions, in N. Cross, H. Christiaans & K. Dorst (eds) Analyzing Design Activity, John Wiley & Sons, New York (or Design Studies, Vol 16, Nov 2, pp 211-236) akinlin95.pdf For:July-Dec
  • Pro: “2.2 Data interpolation experiments

When we received the data in March 1994, we decided to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the fact that neither of the authors were familiar with the data or the experiment. Since our initial premise was to explore the relationship between the verbal and the visual data, i.e., the transcript versus the video images, we set out to test the dependencies that may exist between these two forms of data. We designed an experiment in which one of us took the visual data (the video without the sound track) and the other took the verbal data (the printed transcriptions) and set out to guess the missing half of the data (Figure 3). That is, Subject-l, one of us, tried to predict the drawings from the printed transcript; while the other, Subject-2, tried to predict the…”

I like the setup for this experiment. It sounds well thought out and a worthy testing structure.

“It may appear unusual that one would even consider predicting data with no prior knowledge of it, let alone predict about 25% of it correctly. However, neither of these results are unusual or original in cognitive
psychology. In a similar experiment Charness 19, asked chess masters to predict board positions for pieces without ever seeing these positions. His results in terms of accuracy of prediction is comparable to, if not better than ours. The point is, there is an underlying mechanism in operation here. Experts, and our subjects would be considered experts as would be chess masters, have sufficient knowledge from previous experiences to recognize generic patterns.”

That is wonderful, and I want to dig into that more.

  • Gardner, H, 1994, Chapter 6, The Creator’s Patterns, in MA Boden (ed) Dimensions of Creativity, MIT Press, 143-158 gardner-pattern.pdf – For: Apr – June, Against: July – Dec, Questions: Jan – March
  • Against:

I strongly dislike the limitations of this definition due to its need for establishment within a group.

Do, Ellen Yi-Luen and Mark D Gross, (2007) Environments for Creativity, a Lab for Making Things in Creativity and Cognition, 27-26, ACM SIGCHI paper

“True, most people find mastering even one discipline to be a serious challenge, and only an occasional outlier will master two or more disciplines. Not to understate the work involved, but with motivation and access to knowledge, designers can acquire skills to function effectively in two or more quite different fields. Indeed, for some, knowledge of designing within one discipline can support rapid and sophisticated acquisition of knowledge in another.”

While I also am inclined to assume that the above is true, where is the empirical evidence to support it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: